IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2017-KA-00311-SCT WALTER DEWAY

NE SANFORD a/k/a WALTER SANFORD a/k/a WALTER D. SANFORD

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/07/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CLAIBORNE McDONALD TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: JOHN MICHAEL HORAN JAMES L. GRAY JOHN A. HOW ELL CURTIS LEE HAYS VANESSA J. JONES HALDON J. KITTRELL COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: W . DANIEL HINCHCLIFF GEORGE T. HOLMES ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: HALDON J. KITTRELL NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 05/03/2018 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE WALLER, C.J., COLEMAN AND MAX W ELL, JJ. WALLER, CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Wa l t e r D e w ay

ne Sanf ord was convicted in Pearl R iver County Circuit C o u r t f o r aggravated DUI causing death under M ississippi Code S ection 63-11-30(5). Having f oundn o a p p e a l able issues, S anf o rd’s counsel f

iled a Lindsey brief

. 1 Sanf ord argues, pro s e , insuf f iciency of the e vidence. Finding the conviction is suppor t ed by l egally suf f icient evidence, we af

f irm

. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. On a clear af

ternoon around 3:00 on Novem ber 20, 2014, Sanf

o rd was driving with his passenger, Teresa Ann Spiers, on Interstate 59 South in a grey s edan owned by S anf ord’s

m other. Kendra Newton, who was driving on Interstate 59 North, saw Sanf o rd m ake a u-turn in the m edian and j oin the n orthbound l ane of traf f ic. Norm a Richard, a l s o t r a v e ling northbound, reported that Sanf ord had crossed the m edian and s tarted driving north. 2 Once S a nf ord was across the m edian and traveling in the northbound lanes, both New t o n a n d Richard o bserved him driving erratically , including speeding up and slowing d own several tim es in the lef

t lane. Newton r eported that, eventually , S anf ord drove behind her vehicle in the right lane. N ewton was about to exit Interstate 59 when Sanf ord crashed into the rear of Newton’s car. ¶3. Em ergency c rews arrived at the s cene of the accident and encountered Sanf ord try ing to a dm inister CPR to Spiers. F irem an Darren Dennis asked Sanf ord, “Man, what happened? ”

1 L in d sey v. S ta te , 9 3 9 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 8 ( ¶ 1 8 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ) ( estab l ish in g th e p ro ced u re to b e u s ed w h en “ap p ellate co u n sel rep r esen ts an in d ig en t crim in al d e f e n d an t an d d o es n o t b eliev e h is o r h er clien t ’s case p resen ts an y arg u ab le issu es o n ap p eal[ .] ”).

2 R ich ard testif

ied b y v id eo d e p o sitio n . A n ag reed o rd er w as e n t ered all o w i n g t h e testim o n y b y v id e o d e p o sitio n . M ississip p i Ru le o f C r im i n a l P ro ced u re 1 7 .5 , ef f ectiv e Ju ly 1 , 2 0 1 7 , n o w p ro v id es a p ro ced u re f o r trial d ep o sitio n s in crim i n a l cases. 2to which Sanf ord replied th at he had “swerved or lost control and f lipped the vehicle.” Sanf ord’s statem ents caused Dennis to believe Sanf ord had been driving the vehicle. ¶4. Newton, Sanf

ord, and Spiers were taken t o t h e h o s p i t a l

. N e w t o n a n d Sanf ord survived, but Spiers pas s e d away shortly af ter the a ccident. Dr. Lisa Leek, the em ergency

ro o m p h y sician, testif

ied Spiers had died f

rom “blunt f

orce traum a to her h ead” caused by the accident. ¶5. Sanf

ord adm itted he had b een drinking b e f o r e t h e a ccident, and his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 0.23%. Firs t responders a lso f ound several e m

pty c ans of beer inside and around Sanf

ord’s car. The grand jury indicted Sanf ord f or DUI causing death. ¶6. At trial, Sanf

ord testif ied Spiers was driving the vehicle, n ot him

. Sanf ord’s m other, Bobbie Sanf

ord, also t estif

ied that Spiers w as driving w hen they had lef t her h o u s e t h a t

m orning. However, Newton testif ied that “the guy [ Sanf

ord] w a s driving,” not the wom an. And Richard testif

ied that it “looked like a m ale” was driving the vehicle. ¶7. Sanf

ord disputed Newton’s account of Sanf ord’s actions and countered that Newton had crashed into the back o f his and Spiers’s vehicle, causing the wreck. O n c r osse x am ination, Newton acknowledged that photographs in evidence showed no dent on t h e bum per o f h er car and showed considerable da mage to the f r ont of her car. Neither the prosecution nor the def

ense called an accident reconstructionist to testif y . ¶8. On January 20, 2017, the jury returned a unanim ous v erdict against Sanf ord. Because Sanf ord had two p rior D UI convictions, the trial c o urt sentenced him to twenty -f ive y ears in prison. Sanf

ord f i led a m otion f

or judgm ent notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the

3alternative, f or a new trial, arguing the v erdict was n ot s upported by suf f icient evidence and

was against the overwhelm i ng w eight of the evidence. The trial court d enied S anf ord’s

m otion, and Sanf

ord f iled a notice of

appeal. DISCUSSION I. Sanford’s Pro SeSupplem ental Brief A. Issue Presented ¶9. Sanf

ord r aises two i ssues in his pro s e brief

. F irst, he argues h e is “actually innocent” of causing the accident. If he m e ans there is evidence to prove his “actual innocence,” that argum ent is f

or p o st-conviction proceedings under Mississippi C ode Section 9 9-39-5. If he

m eans the State f

a iled to prove his guilt, he is att a c k i n g t he suf f i ciency of the e vidence, which is his second argum ent. And Sanf o r d p reserved his s uf

f iciency -of

-the-evidence challenge by

m oving f or directed verdict and JNOV. B. Standard of Review ¶10. Wh en testing the suf f iciency o f the evidence, this Court u s e s a d e n o v o standard of review. Brooks v

. State , 2 03 So. 3d 1134, 1 137 ( ¶ 11) (Miss. 2016). “The relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of f a ct c o u l d h a v e f

o und the essential elem ents of the crim e bey ond a reasonable doubt.’” Hearn v. State , 3 So. 3d 722, 740 (¶ 54) (Miss. 2008) (citation

om itt e d )

. The evidence is viewed in the light m ost f avorable t o the State. Henley v. State , 136 So. 3d 413, 415 (¶ 8) (Miss. 2014). C. Analy s is

4¶11. Sanf ord was c o n v i c t e d o f aggravated DUI causing death under Mississippi Code Section 63-11-30(5), which provides, Aggravated DUI. (a) Every person who operates any m otor v ehicle in violation of subsection ( 1) of this section [ i.e. , while having an alcohol concentration in the person’s blood of .08% or m ore] and who in a negligent m anner causes the d eath of another . . . shall, upon conviction, be g uilty of a

. . . f e lony

. . . and shall be comm itted to the custody of the State D epartm ent of Corrections f

or a p eriod of tim e of not less than f ive (5) y e ars and not to exceed twenty -f

ive (25) y ears f

or each death. . . .” Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30(5) (Rev. 2013). ¶12. Sanf

ord adm itted to drinking the day of the accident, and the State presented evidence that S anf ord’s BAC was 0.23%. The only c ontested points in the evidence were w h e t her Sanf ord was driving and how the accident occurred. ¶13. Sanf

ord t estif ied–and continues to assert on ap p e a l

– t h at he was not driving the day of the accident. H owe v e r , the S tate presented two witnesses–Newton and Richard–who testif i ed that Sanf

ord was the driver of

the car. Darren Dennis, the f irem an who arrived on the scene, f

urther testif

ied that, when asked what happened, Sanf ord said that he “swerved

or lost control and f

lipped the vehicle.” And that caused Dennis to believe Sanf ord was the driver of the car. “[ W ]hen the evidence is conf licting, the jury will be the sole judge of the credibility of w itnesses and the weight and worth of their testim ony . . . . [ T ]he credibility of witnesses is not f

o r the reviewing court.” Ross v. State , 954 So. 2d 968, 1031 (¶ 196) (Miss. 2007) (quoting Hughes v. S tate , 735 So. 2d 238, 2 7 6

– 7 7 ( ¶ 177) (Miss 1999)); see also Howell v. State , 8 60 So. 2d 704, 731 (¶ 92) (Miss. 2003) ( “The jury alone determ ines the weight and worth of any c onf licting t e s t i m ony .”). The State introduced evidence that, if

5believed by the jury , established Sanf ord as the d

river of the c ar; the conf

licting evidence in this case was f

or the jury

to resolve. ¶14. The sam e is true f

o r how the accident occurred. Sanf ord testif ied Newton hit the back of his car, and N ewton t e s t i f i e d Sanf ord hit the back of her car. M ultiple p ictures taken imm ediately af

ter the accident were adm itted into evidence as exhibits. It was the province of the jury to exam i ne this evidence and decide how the accident occurred. Cowan v. State , 399 So. 2d 1346, 1350 (Miss. 1981). II. Appellate Counsel’s LindseyBrief ¶15. Sanf

ord’s appellate counsel f

iled a Lindsey brief

, asserting that he could not f ind any arguable issues f

or appeal. Lindsey v. State , 939 So. 2 d 743, 748 (¶ 18) (Miss. 2005). This Court has reviewed the record and brief s and likewise f

inds no arguable i ssues to address on direct appeal. Id. CONCLUSION ¶16. Sanf

ord’s pro se argum ent of

insuf f iciency of the evidence lacks m erit, because the State presented evidence that established b ey ond a reasonable doubt every essential elem ent of agg r a v a t e d DUI causing d e ath. Sanf ord’s appellate counsel com plied with this Court’s requirem ents f

or f iling a Lindsey brief

. Af ter a thorough review o f the record, we could not f ind any arguable issues that w ould have required additional brief ing. Theref

ore, w e af f irm the judgm ent and sentence of the Pearl River County

Circuit Court. ¶17. AFFIRMED. RANDOLPH AND KITCHENS, P .JJ., KING, CO L E M AN, M AX WELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.

6